Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant¡¯s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video footage, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these allegations had been previously litigated and decided upon in the first Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations of improper motives on the part of the ABCC or others, including claims of intentional doctoring of the CCTV video footage and the log entries were provided with no supporting evidence and therefore they had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that weighing the evidence was the discretion of the ABCC and, in turn, the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by finding that the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion was lawful, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ABCC (and the Secretary-General) considered all relevant matters and did not consider irrelevant matters, in weighing the evidence and making its findings and inferences. Noting that it is not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review the correctness of the impugned decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision was rational and lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to deny his claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules for injuries and illnesses which he claimed resulted from a single motor vehicle incident. Following a previous application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the matter was remanded to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) to correct three procedural irregularities. Following this correction by the ABCC and a second application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Secretary-General properly exercised his discretion in denying the Appellant¡¯s claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
There are two elements that must be established for a claim under Appendix D to the Staff Rules: (i) the medical assessment of whether the claimant suffered from the injury or illness as alleged; and (ii) the non-medical factual determination of whether the illness or injury was attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the Organisation. The burden of proving any allegations of ill-motivation rests with the appellant.